Glimpse inside the mind of a contemporary philosopher…

Menu

Tag Archives: Biology

10 Tidbits of Recent Concern

Hello Dear Readers…

This morning I am researching what is happening overseas. Curious, yes of course, but the way things go…if England is affected by something, there is a strong possibility that America will feel repercussions. I feel like if we research we will be better prepared to handle any outcomes.

That being said, there is much information available online. What can a reader trust? Personally, I trust no one. I find “truth” by comparing numerous articles and looking for similarities. Because, frankly, there is no hard “truth,” only subjective interpretation.

What can we really know?

1. That’s a hard one. However, one must be steadfast. Opinion cannot be accepted as it varies per person. “Facts” cannot be praised because they were ultimately written by a person. If every event has at least two sides to the story — or fifteen sides in the quantum world — then reading a story is not going to assist that much in “truth finding.”

2. There is one thing I can extend a gram of “trust” to, and that is historical themes. A theme does not depend on opinion, it is a trend in history. Cliches are annoying but some are right – history does in fact repeat itself. Not in the sense that each event replays continuously, but in the way that humanity moves in a zigzagging pattern much like evolution. We go out with our ideas, but when the ideas don’t work, we come back home to sort out a new plan.

3. Considering recent European events with this train of thought, I do not think that it is unexpected that Britain left the EU. I am not taking either side – I do not know their politics enough to cast judgment. What I am saying is that the trend of the EU was progressive – they tried to bring democracy and drop walls. However, reality did not embrace theory. What looked good on paper did not stand up well in the here and now. Historically, the reasonable action is to withdraw – “go home” and lick one’s wounds, and then…develop a new method.

4. Taking history into account, there are time periods that act as a “reply” for past occurrences. Currently, the entire world is trying to figure out what to do about the Islamic culture. On my small scale, my advice is education. I’ve said it before and will repeat it here: Educate the youth in hopes of securing a better future. First off, introduce them to Darwinism, Biology, and Genetics. Science confronts life situations with empirical data. Certain cultures refuse to read any book that is not religious. This is a huge misstep. Human thought, expression, and consciousness expands at escalated rates. Yet, some people do not know “science is real.” Some people fail to notice the damages brought on by incest, or marrying one’s cousin.

5. When I think about “historical replies” I cannot help but land on the dangers of appeasement, or giving in to a “bullying” force who issues demands for a select group. Uncontrollably, the image of Hitler comes to mind. It makes me uncomfortable because I saw comments yesterday that Atheist sites were being taken down from social media. The motivation: Islamic culture. Supposedly, since the Muslims find Atheists offensive, the Atheist viewpoint is restricted. How is that just?

6. Ah, it is most definitely not just. I find sporting events offensive, but does that mean that the sporting industry should be dismantled? Nope — it means that I make the personal choice to not watch sports.

7. Social media should include all aspects of human preference. The moment one group limits another indicates that the first believes they are “better” than the rest. Guess what…we are all humans. We are all species. Not a single one is better than another. We are all forms of life. Darwinism illustrates the connection of species. If all cultures accepted scientific evidence then much of belief’s illusions would fade away.

8. Western culture is filled with individuals. Individualism is our bag. However, older cultures still operate under collectivism. Huge difference. Here is another historical theme – Individualism developed out of the Enlightenment. In America, we recognize the Enlightenment era as sloughing off tired beliefs that no longer rang true because of the empirical evidence presented by science. Collective societies have not learned Enlightenment lessons – they refuse to read or accept the science. So why, for Reason’s sake, would progressive thought kneel to backward society?

9. Society cannot give in to backward demands. Society strives for the betterment of the human race just like evolution. Or it should. Religion and Science are expressions of human thought. One relies on belief, the other on empirical evidence. The individual gets to decide which one speaks louder to them. What’s important is that each person should have the right to choose for the self.

10. I am not religious. I prefer understanding reality through science. However, I see value in both as dependent on the person. Humans should be able to believe whatever they want to believe, or believe nothing and look for knowledge. The point is that it is personal preference. I think if everyone recognized the effort it takes in constructing the self, we could realize that each person has a great task before them. Each person is in charge of their own reality, and nobody…nobody…has any right to limit individual growth. –Not a government, not a Union, not a Culture, not a Religion, not even Science.

Today began my last session of courses before my projected Capstone in the Humanities. J The light is on at the end of the tunnel, but much like the Las Vegas desert, the distance is still intimidating. I have been altered by my graduate experience, and my goals have similarly shifted along the way. What really shocked me, however, was that science was the authority that turned on the lights – and this alone prompted me to take this course. After I completed HUMN 551, Evolution of Life and Intelligence, I was able to see the influence of biology at work on nearly every platform. Never a supporter of religion, I was, oddly enough, further shocked to accept the lessons of the Enlightenment in which humankind was understood as part of the animal kingdom, exposing nature as able to alter the physical – though dependent on long periods of time.

All that’s fine and well…but who am I? I graduated from Fairmont State University in 2010 with a Bachelor of Arts in History, minors in English and Philosophy. I guess I am sort of a trifecta – I must find truth, expression, and be able to disprove it all {haha}. The more I advance in studies the more I listen closer to philosophy, or rather, the more I see avenues of altruistic possibilities as per philosophic notion. The thought patterns of human capabilities fascinate me<>…and I think that in the future, a connection will be seen between philosophy and science, in that the intrinsic patterns of thought in the brain are evolving in efforts to further lesson the struggle of life. Science plays a big part in that, and genetics, so I need to learn the history of science to properly grasp modern science. {that’s the historian in me, I always need to go back to the beginning to understand the present} I chose Humanities over History because I want to include literature and thought as human experience along with who won what war; interdisciplinary studies mirrors how I interpret education to benefit the individual – a diverse arena offers multiple lessons.

Humanism considers the nature and the experiences of the human being to be the central point to existence. Biology demonstrates the abilities of humankind as evolutionary genetic modifications and alterations to species throughout organic life over exceptionally long periods of time. Transhumanism recognizes the patterns of evolution – the perfecting of species as adaptable to its changing environment – and seizes evolution’s altruistic characteristics so as to expedite the process of preserving and bettering life. No longer will time reign supreme for the possibility of physical immortality. Disease and deformities could be a worry of the past. I intend to show that through the discoveries of science, humanity will be able to alter genetic makeup and bridge another gap between humankind and the unknown as well as developing a new philosophy for understanding these changes. This paper will first address the advancing human consciousness and then consider the progress possible for transhumanism.

Heightened human awareness ushers in advanced consciousness and integral philosophy with growing concerns for many world issues and problems. The advancement of the human consciousness is best understood through a spiral of growth instead of visualizing linear concepts. According to Steve McIntosh the co-founder of The Institute for Cultural Evolution, the levels of consciousness are: archaic, tribal, warrior, traditional, modernist, postmodern, integral, and postintegral. Each corresponding stage is in reaction to the predominant issue of discord from the stage before it: “This dialectical relationship among the stages can be seen in the way that each stage arises in an antithetical reaction to the problems created by the stage that precedes it. And as the stages unfold within the spiral as a whole, we can see how the themes of earlier stages are recapitulated in later stages but with greater degrees of complexity and sophistication” (McIntosh 35). The spiral is perceived in half, right to left – the right expresses the self while the left sacrifices the self. Humanity must learn to balance the betterment of the individual and the universal betterment for all life.

Integral philosophy deals with internal evolution or an evolution of thinking: “Just as the emergence of modernism produced cultural evolution through its new understanding and mastery of the external universe, we will soon begin to see how the emergence of the integral worldview will result in similarly dramatic cultural evolution through its new understanding and mastery of the internal universe” (McIntosh 17-18). Modernism realized the objective and subjective nature of humankind and allowed for scientific progress. Postmodernism saw the coldness of science, and fought against social Darwinism, demanding that all life is equal. The first integral philosopher was Georg W.F. Hegel: “By revealing how history unfolds in a dialectical process wherein conflict makes possible the transformation to a higher state, Hegel laid the foundation for the evolutionary understanding of the universe that has since become central to all scientific and philosophical thought” (McIntosh 160). Integral concerns, which are still in the process of emerging, will include a worldview with universal considerations and empathetic nature to the individual as part of a whole.

Nico & Vinz composed the song Am I Wrong? for what is commonly known as the collective or Anonymous – a group of people who share the same concerns in regards to the continuation of life. Their lyrics suggest a new method for progress, but the concept is only an idea and society attempts to conform their thoughts: “I ain’t tryna do what everybody else doing / Just cause everybody doing what they all do / If one thing I know, I’ll fall but I’ll grow /I’m walking down this road of mine, this road that I call home” (Nico & Vinz). Falling down indicates failure, but the meaning is positive because a lesson is learned. The sprawling political activist group Anonymous has championed this song, and it speaks to every person who has questioned the direction of authority. The song recommends to allow for the individual without reducing the whole of humanity: “Walk to walk and don’t look back, always do what you decide / Don’t let them control your life, that’s just how I feel / Fight for yours and don’t let go, don’t let them compare you, no / Don’t worry, you’re not alone, that’s just how we feel” (Nico & Vinz). The ‘I’ was changed to ‘We’ because Nico & Vinz know that they are not alone in feeling this desire to make the movement real – to issue in integral consciousness.

The Internet greatly assists the human consciousness by connecting the world with technology. Prior to the 1990s, information was gathered the old fashioned way – writing letters or word of mouth. People from dislocated areas were not connected with the Western world, but now technology is reaching out to bring the world online. Integral consciousness starts inside the human being, it is an inkling that something will fix the problems of the world once enough minds are aware that change is required to move forward. Society has not reached a full realization of the importance of preserving all the life in the world, but the institution is on the way. At the moment, a large portion of the Western world is lodged in postmodernism in which it faces: “an intense struggle with traditionalism to define the morality and attract the allegiance of the modernist majority” (McIntosh 61). Postmodernism fails to acknowledge the necessity of the spiral in that the lessons of consciousness lead to the ultimate goal of integral thought. Postmodern thought wants humanity to swallow down lessons that they are not quite ready for – namely the issues of Islam, a nation firmly rooted in traditionalist consciousness and highly tinged with warrior mentality.

Integral consciousness understands the importance of nations of people progressing properly toward enlightenment and beyond. The stages of the spiral are prerequisite before progress can be gained. Nations cannot be forced into a new understanding. McIntosh notes that humanity must experience the spiral:

The rise of postmodern consciousness has now had a significant impact on the politics of the Western democracies. In fact, each new stage of consciousness that has emerged in the sequence of historical development has been endowed with an advantage over the stage that preceded it by virtue of the increased depth and complexity of its values. Warrior consciousness defeats tribal consciousness because of its ruthless ferocity and energetic determination. Traditional consciousness is usually able to defeat warrior consciousness because of its superior organization and group discipline. Modernist consciousness overcomes traditional consciousness as a result of its technological and industrial superiority. And postmodern consciousness finds its advantage over modernism in its unique ability to bring about change through nonviolent political action and moral strength (57).

Everything alive is required to change so as to continue onward. Geological elements set the standard, and organic life is forced to respond to fluctuating nature. Consciousness or the ability to recognize and be aware of those changes is in itself an element of evolution. For human beings evolution has occurred inside the intellect. Adaptability is a gift of natural selection, it is a way for species to adjust their internal makeup or external abilities to better evolve with the habitat. In his piece “Zoological Philosophy (1809),” Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine De Monet Lamarck discussed the ability to change one’s habits so as to fit with the ever-changing world, and in doing so he addressed the phasing out of one organ to issue a more appropriate and successful attempt at continued life: “Hence we may infer that when some change in the environment leads to a change of habit in some race of animals, the organs that are less used die away little by little, while those which are more used develop better, and acquire a vigor and size proportional to their use” (45). Much like evolution’s encouragement to species to adjust to the physical world, consciousness also adjusts to understand that world must change to allow for progress. Environment issues the playing field in which species must adapt to survive. However, modern human beings are able to control the environment in which they live – the ancients would view modern peoples as gods.

The way something is in existence is partially dependent on how the human mind perceives that something to be, and how humanity handles life is becoming less of a struggle with a greater consciousness. As the human race becomes more empathetic society will better accommodate acceptance. Ethical concerns arise over basic scientific issues with genetic enhancement such as side effects or animal abuse, but ultimately the fear of altering human nature is abundant. However, human nature is a changing thing that is also affected by evolution. Also, changing is the way in which consciousness perceives reality. Human nature is more advanced in modern times than it was in the ancient world – this is due to the adaptive abilities of humanity. In Radical Evolution, Jaron Lanier notices two areas of human progress: technological and moral. The moral incline of evolution can be understood when considering the past actions of humanity: “… those who deny the existence of a moral incline are not in touch with the enthusiasm humans once brought to raping, pillaging and burning” (Garreau 210). During the time of the Romans – known as the Golden Age – gladiators battled wild beasts and enslaved men till the death for entertainment, today these acts of savagery would be unheard of. Fear of losing human nature is impossible; although human nature is apt to change, the advances of science will not extinguish the nature of man but usher it further.

McIntosh notes the concern for human nature, but he describes human nature as selfish, war hungry, and a have or have-nots society – why would society fear the loss of these negatives characteristics? The fact that human nature evolves along with the physical self is a boon for integral thinking, and the evolution of the nature of man will permit transhumanistic implantation as acceptable. Currently, artificial enhancement is already present in modern America as seen every time a person puts on a pair of glasses or chews with false teeth. Humanity has been partially artificial for over a hundred years, easily. Scientific capabilities are an extension of man, or an expression of the human experience and therefore natural. Artificial intelligence is manmade but the process for humankind to utilize machines is definitely natural. Intelligence is humanity’s modifier of evolution; through the human ability to perceive and contemplate, people can imagine what-if scenarios as means to solve problems by envisioning the possible outcome so that human beings have surpassed natural evolution (Garreau 72). Evolution offers many gifts, the human responsibility is to experiment with one’s contemplative intelligence in order to discover or create new avenues to perfection.

Perfection needs clarified to mean the most suited to success as per evolutionary means toward advanced organic life. Perfection took on a new meaning in Aldous Huxley’s futuristic piece A Brave New World in which humanity was reduced to Alphas or Epsilons, world controllers or sewage workers (13). The Epsilons do not require intelligence like the Alphas do, and the Hatchery is working on genetic formulas to speed up the physical growth of the Epsilons so that they could begin labor at ten years old. The Alphas are removed from humanity. In order to avoid the upset of emotions, Alphas regularly take pills – somas – to remove experience, Lenina says, “A gramme is always better than a damn” (90). The people prefer virtual simulations to human interactions and no longer copulate as reproduction is handled at the Hatchery through incubation. Bernard refuses the culture and the soma, preferring the New Mexico holiday to be a reality instead of forced perfection and separation from the emotions.

Emotions are an evolutionary advancement that allows for species to connect with others to form society. Humanity is a known social creature, and the recipe is in the genes. Matt Ridley discusses ‘the selfish gene’ theory to determine the social interests of humankind; he said, “{Human beings} come into the world equipped with predispositions to learn how to cooperate, to discriminate the trustworthy from the treacherous, to commit themselves to be trustworthy, to earn good reputations, to exchange goods and information, and to divide labor” (522). The goal of trustworthiness is a social concern; humans want to be able to trust members of society. Human beings thrive in numbers and are not meant to live solitary lives. The evolution of emotions can be seen in the civil rights movements – people did not always care for the less fortunate as they do in postmodern times.

Morality is the ability to discern right from wrong as applicable to the society one wants to live in. Frans De Waal acknowledged morality in animals and recognized an advanced moral code in human beings. Evolution created morality: “Evolution has produced the requisites for morality: a tendency to develop social norms and enforce them, the capacities of empathy and sympathy, mutual aid and a sense of fairness, the mechanisms of conflict resolution, and so on” (Waal 513). Morality is a priori and a biological process accredited to genetic code. Morals belong to the human being and not to any spiritual or government office. Waal continues to prove that morality is a neurological process and not dependent on the heart: “Once thought of as purely spiritual matters, honesty, guilt, and the weighing of ethical dilemmas are traceable to specific areas of the brain. … The human brain is a product of evolution” (517). Ethics are inherent in human nature, yet religion has laid claim to morality. As humanity continues to ride the spiral of consciousness, the religious concerns of traditionalism will fade away to make room for transhumanistic endeavors.

Enhanced humans will create an advanced norm that a natural human will never attain. Joel Garreau discusses the future possibilities of transhumanism through genetic enhancement in his text Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies – and What It Means to Be Human. He describes three scenarios: Heaven, Hell, and Prevail. The scenarios are dependent on Moore’s Law and the upcoming Singularity. Technological advances such as gaming devices, cellular phones, laptops and the Internet are truly important aspects of modern human life. While in Silicon Valley, Garreau noted, “I have spoken to people who say they consider regular human relationships superfluous and outdated, that they get everything they need from the computer. They say that and mean it; they’re not kidding around” (63). Human dependency on machines is an everyday norm for modern America. In the average American home, even families that still sit down to dinner together typically resort to communication via text message over actually speaking to each other face to face. The Curve as well as human dependency on machines escalate each year, pushing towards the inevitable moment when the machines are able to control themselves and humans are no longer necessary…the Singularity: “This greater-than-human intelligence in turn proceeds to replicate and improve itself at such a rate as to exceed comprehension” (Garreau 82). Once the Singularity occurs, humanity will hold no authority. However, Garreau does not believe that will come to a head, he prefers the Prevail scenario as a balanced transhuman effort.

Before delving into the Heaven and Hell Scenarios one must understand the Singularity. Ray Kurzweil describes the upcoming Singularity as an exponential theory that the doubling of matter and technological advances will lead humanity to a point where nothing works anymore, to a singular point that humanity cannot come back from. In his TEDtalk “A University for the Upcoming Singularity,” Kurzweil notes that linear thinking will not solve this issue as Moore’s Law will run out in 2020, but exponential growth will work in the fourth dimension continuing progress. Moore’s Law decrees that reproduction will act in a doubling effect and spiral out of control. The Singularity holds that humans will not be needed, and the robotic force will exist without the fleshy human bodies taking up so much space. In efforts to slow down the process towards the Singularity becoming a current reality, Garreau presented the Heaven and Hell Scenarios.

The Heaven Scenario involves optimistic endeavors to adjust and enhance the human being using nanotechnology and genetics. In this scenario, the enhanced humans hold emotional value and pity for the natural humans, and gracefully skip into progress with their friendly robots in tow. Genetics currently comes in two kinds: somatic gene therapy and germ-line engineering. The former affects the genes that have gone bad in one person, but the latter is able to alter the genes that would be passed down through reproduction (Garreau 116). Ethical concerns worry for the future children who may not want gene alteration, and the added chromosomes may not sit well with the human composition. Ray Kurzweil sees greater love in the future and supports the Heaven Scenario. This greater love is a higher consciousness: humanity has a hold on survival and can now focus attention on participating, preserving, and enjoying life. Kurzweil refers to The Curve, or exponential growth, as a force of nature: “Like evolution, it is simply a pattern of life to be recognized, the outcome of billions of small actions. {Kurzweil} calls it ‘The Law of Accelerating Returns’” (Garreau 94). The deciding factor rests on the morality inside human nature to reach for the good.

As expected, the Hell Scenario is the pessimistic opposite of the Heaven Scenario. Here humanity is grotesquely mutilated by genetics gone awry and subjected to slavery by the dominant machines: “Probably more important is the ‘yuck-factor’ – the visceral rejection of technologies that are seen as anti-human. Headlines about human cloning produced one of the more vivid Hell Scenarios” (Garreau 171). Respected scientist Bill Joy is a member of this theory. In his TEDtalk, Joy notes his concern for the possibility of abusing nanotechnology. Joy is exceptionally concerned for self-reproducing nanobots or the ability of robotic machines to make more machines via the robotic will and not that of human will. Despite the depression Joy found himself in with studies of human extinction and the Singularity, he does see positives in three areas. Educational tools – such as computers and laptops – will lessen in cost while rising in speed and ability, environment issues find hope with nanomaterials which not only conduct but can also produce electricity, and human innovation in methods of defense through medicine to reduce a pandemic are all probable and possible (Joy). These possibilities can be reached, but Joy does not believe unlimited power with genetic alteration will benefit society. Regulations and rules are needed to govern genetics much like any other advancement. Joy calls for containment of information and demands some type of insurance for catastrophic risks.

Ancient minds reached for the gods, alchemists searched for the philosopher’s stone, and religion issued pilgrimages for the cup of Christ: the goal immortality. Scientists seized the torch and created reality for the imaginative mind through acknowledging the human genome in the twentieth century, and nanotechnology takes off from human abilities to act as an extension of species. The human ability to imagine allows for the acceptance of change to be a more comfortable reality. Fiction, as demonstrated with the twentieth century, pushed the boundaries of the human imagination: “Novels stretched our conceptions of human-created Heaven, kick-starting our thinking about what was possible, forcing us to change our perception of what was serious” (Garreau 109). Fiction familiarizes the imagined reality to become a probability. Science looked at fiction and saw a glimmer of reality to expand on through biological means – the alteration of genetic code.

Fixing what is broken is the initial concern of genetic alteration – cure the sick, repair structures, and implement immunities. In his piece “CRISPR – Technology and Controversy,” Dr. Shouguang Jin discusses the abilities of CRISPR to repair damaged DNA: “In theory, then, hereditary features that people consider advantageous, such as higher intelligence, better body appearance and longevity, can be introduced into an individual’s genome through CRISPR mediated reproductive cell modifications as well.” Regulations to alter the genome do not yet exist, but something is halting research. The transhumanistic desire to improve humanity is held back by ethical concerns. Why would society turn away from repairing one’s DNA? Overpopulation factors stiffen the reserve to resist progress.

Overpopulation is a major concern for the world as it is a current serious threat to the continuation of humanity. Modern scientists estimate that humanity may face extinction due to overpopulation because the world is not able to sustain more than nine billion people (Boundless). The World Population Clock keeps track of the number of people existing and states on average a new life is born every eight seconds while one life ends every thirteen seconds (Census). Overpopulation is a rational fear. Due to the technological and genetic advances of humankind, the threat of natural selection cursor to extinction appears to be a problem of the past – however, the causation for the longevity in continued lifespan could, in fact, be humanity’s downfall. Not only has the reproduction rate escaladed over the past two hundred years but the individual life expectancy rate has also doubled. Overpopulation is a natural issue as well as an ethical concern. As of June 12th of 2014 at 11:35 a.m., the total number of people alive on the earth was 7,249,376,950 billion (Census). Thomas Robert Malthus wrote “An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798)” in which he insisted that “… the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man” (39). Malthus means that the earth is not naturally able to produce enough food for the number of individuals alive to be properly nourished.

Hank from the SciShow discussed “The Science of Overpopulation” in an online video. While he supports that the Industrial Revolution cured Malthus’ ills, Hank feels that humanity did take the threat seriously; Malthus’ piece encouraged a lessened reproduction rate, with the rate dropping from 1.3 million to 1.1 million (SciShow). Genetic abilities to resist death will create a greater issue of continued reproduction with no lessening in numbers. Marvin Minsky suggests immortality is possible in his video “Health and the Human Mind.” Minsky jokes about nanotechnology reducing the size of human beings so less space is taken up, or a single child sharing forty-six parents in a time-share method to reduce population. In Minsky’s future, people would have the ability to be immortal, but they would be stored on hard drives, coming out only every few thousands years to live a thousand years and then being placed back in storage so as to permit others time to live (Minsky). Nature can only sustain a certain amount of people, but humanity has surpassed the abilities of evolution to genetically modify food, plant and animal alike.

Pamela Ronald argues that modern genetics are the most effective method in agriculture in her TEDtalk “The Case for Engineering our Food.” After a decade of experimentation and research, Ronald isolated a gene in rice to allow the rice to survive flooding. If alteration can be accepted by society, this improved rice would not perish during the heavy flood months, thus avoiding famine for the people who rely on rice as a main sustenance. Genetically improved seeds will grow larger and healthier plants, and genetic improvements also encourage eco-friendly actions (Ronald). Malthus’ concerns for the earth producing enough food for humanity to survive are thus adverted by scientific advancement through genetic modification. Many Americans are uncomfortable with genetically modified food, and a large influx of holistic and natural food products are present in the country.

Production of food is not the main concern in regards to starvation because the world is able to manufacture through industry and double through genetic modification. Pete Alcorn opposes the predictions of Malthus because he did not allot for the evolutionary characteristics of humankind. Malthus was not counting on the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century in which humankind now holds the ability to produce enough food (Alcorn). The proper distribution of food and resources could save world hunger if obesity were to subside. Ellen Gustafson, a philanthropist who co-founded FEED and created “The 30-Project”, notes that there are one billion people starving and one billion people obese. While obesity is a result of overeating and neglecting exercise, what types of food one consumes also has a large role. Corn, grain, and wheat make up the majority of the American diet – filler food with lackluster nutrients. The obese nations have plenty of products to eat, but they eat the incorrect types of food. Processed foods lead to diabetic health risks as well as obesity. As the processed food is imported to other nations the health risk percentage rise in a global effect: “Internationally, WHO projects that by 2015, approximately 2.3 billion adults will be overweight and more than 700 million will be obese” (Gustafson). Gustafson proposes a thirty-year plan to cultivate a revised successful food plan to be made available for the entire world population to benefit.

Feeding the whole world would allow for the poorest members of humanity to move up the ramp of civilization, but the process of progress can only be realized once basic needs of survival are met. Dr. Hans Rosling acknowledges the area of humanity in which large population is due to poverty status, and he illustrates the influence of educated thought and preconceived notions to extinguish the myth of overpopulation extinction in his video “The Overpopulation Myth”. The world population graph shows that with education families reduce the number of children per household to ensure a better quality of life. By educating the women of these countries about birth control and basic sexual processes, the women understand that their body belongs to them. The women of Bangladesh are learning a fundamental concept of the personal rights of the individual, and are becoming aware to the value of smaller family size. Though progress seems to move slowly, within fifty years family size has been reduced from eight children per couple to two children in Bangladesh, and Dr. Rosling accredits democracy for directing some of the changes. In a previous TEDtalk, “Global Population Growth, Box by Box,” Dr. Rosling demonstrated the problem with overpopulation as an economic concern. The poorest people want to be able to eat everyday while the richest people want to fly away for vacation throughout the year. If the richest cultures would assist the poorest cultures – through education and limited mutual aid – the poor could move up slowly, to advance to wanting a bicycle and eventually an automobile instead of just dreaming of owning a pair of shoes (Rosling “Global Growth”). The poorest peoples cannot be expected to assume the richest society; much like the spiral of consciousness, realities must be assumed slowly so as to ensure the value of human experience is implemented.

Until the population increase better improves, the concept of extending the human life span seems like a slippery slope. As means to prevent death and suffering, science and medicine battle to eliminate the struggle for life by thwarting evolution. Humanity has surpassed natural selection and is steaming ahead towards progress as a transhumanistic force. In her piece “We are All Cyborgs Now,” Amber Case notes that humanity cannot turn its nose up to genetic modification because human society is already dependent on unnatural enhancements. Computers and cellphones are external brains, according to Case, who points out that the majority of Americans depend upon their machines. From asking Siri how to spell a word to late night steamy text messages, human beings enjoy their cellphones – especially their smart phones so as to connect online. Unsure if machines are connecting humankind or conquering humanity disguised as assistants, Case finds interest in the ethical debate regarding the incorporation of robotic intelligence into daily life because she notes that robots have been in our lives for over twenty years. Computers are not the first machines that have been integrated into the modern home. Televisions are common in nearly every room of the American household.

Nick Bostrom is also concerned with artificial intelligence becoming “smart” like a human being. In his TEDtalk “What Happens When Our Computers Get Smarter Than We Are?” Bostrom wonders which values will be preserved: those of the machine or those of humankind. Robotic intelligence can process information faster than humans and can store unlimited amounts of data. Garreau mentioned “smart water” surrounding a super-bowl dome to act as a security device against terrorism (70). The “smart water” is able to detect the prescience of not only people but also something as small as a nanobot. In 2015 nearly every American has a “smart phone” which includes a basic robotic assistant. The fear for human nature is that the robotic creations will surpass their creator – and naturally assume a devious nature intent on enslaving the creator race. I disagree as I cannot understand my iPhone as malicious – that is a trait reserved for humanity. The issue with fear inside human nature is that intelligent human beings question everything and sort out what-if scenarios to ensure the best possible method is practiced. In doing so, humanity forgets that other beings do not function along the same path of inquisition because they have not received the same lessons of evolution. Robotic creatures are not wired the same way that human beings have evolved.

Human beings accept artificial intelligence in the form of replacement limbs or organs for afflicted individuals. In current times, an elderly person who underwent hip replacement surgery is viewed as a successful senior and not as a cyborg. Society accepts medical advancement as well as cosmetic surgery and enhancements. Currently, the cosmetic craze involves collagen filled lips and Brazilian Butt-Lifts. Aesthetic beauty is a force of culture, and transhumanism will permit the individual to look however they want – even if that includes growing fluorescent wings that display messages of one’s emotions like Lanier suggested by mutating the glowing octopi (Garreau). Once integral philosophy is better understood humanity will be able to make exceptions for the genetically enhanced. Uri Dowbenko wrote “Transhumanism: The Anti-Human ‘Singularity’ Agenda” for wakingtimes.com. The website addresses the modern fears of transhumanism and shows concern for the human being in spiritual matters. The desire for an illusion of an all-powerful god will lessen as humanity becomes able to create and cure life, resulting in an advanced spirituality as replacement for religion – an evolution of spirit. Dowbenko fears the transhumanist will create a new god or become a god oneself. Until Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, science and religion could be seen as working together, but the biological means as replacement for creation separated the elements of thought. The documentary “TechnoCalyps” defines transhumanism as the advancement of humanity via artificial means; it began as a vision of religion but became a scientific path to fine-tune the human body for immortal qualities (Theys). Whether repairing the ill or preserving the well, transhumanism aims to lengthen the human lifespan, and in doing so will override natural evolution.

INLOGY Documentaries produced the piece “Bionics, Transhumanism and the End of Evolution” to show the possible factors implicated with genetic alteration. Bionic humans as well as transhumans are processes projected only for the elite few while the rest of humanity will act as the working class. This negative view of humanity displays the inherent fear of the unknown. The worst of humanity will behave as badly as they can with no regard to ethical awareness. Monster Quest aired the episode “Joseph Stalin’s Humanzee Experiments” to show the ugly side of genetics. In efforts to create a more savage army, in 1932, Stalin had chimpanzees impregnated with human embryos. The video interviews locals who insist that Zena was a result of the Humanzee experiments, and they note her to have produced a son named Quib who’s tooth later analyzed included human and chimp DNA (Monster Quest). Crossbreeding species is a terrifying and unethical consideration, but the advantages to Stalin’s army would have been notable. Ethics request caution because knowledge is a powerful tool – if that power is placed in the wrong hands then unimaginable horrors are possible.

The 1930s issued negative vibes for any form of eugenics or genetic alteration. The actions of Adolf Hitler’s unethical experimentation on the Jewish people fueled ethical concern. Edmund Ramsden’s article “Confronting the Stigma of Eugenics: Genetics, Demography and the Problems of Population” discusses the bad taste eugenics left in society’s mouth. By the 1960s the ideals of eugenics shown a stigma transformation resulted from “its ability to allow geneticists and demographers to conceive of eugenic improvement in ways that seemed consistent with the ideals of individuality, diversity and liberty” (Ramsden 853). Harnessing the values of democracy made eugenics less evil, however, the nature-nurture issues that were realized in the 1970s still keep eugenics in an undesirable closet – morality and ethical concern keep the door locked.

Humanity is not comfortable with experiments being practiced on animals or human embryos. In the SciShow episode “The Science Behind ‘Genetically Modified Humans,’” Hank discusses germ-line engineering. Science is able to alter the DNA of children to be immune to diseases through the use of the RNA and CRISPR technology by replacing mutated genes with preferable genes. Altering the human genome, however, is not ethically sound as the GME is noted as tricky and outcomes are not guaranteed (SciShow “Genetically Modified”). Ethics cannot tolerate human embryos to be subjected to experiments. Scientifically, working inside the embryo holds keys to the origin of species. In Darwin’s piece “The Descent of Man” the likenesses of embryotic form between human and dog is strikingly similar; Darwin said, “It may, however, be added, that the human embryo likewise resembles certain low forms when adult in various points of structure. … Even at a later embryonic period, some striking resemblances between man and the lower animals may be observed” (“The Descent of Man” 182). Over one hundred and fifty years has passed since Darwin related humankind to the animal kingdom, it is high time ethics understood the necessity for experimentation. For progress to continue, ethics must allow for experimentation either on human embryos or other embryos that closely resemble humankind. Paul Root Wolpe calls for regulations to be set for genetic practices in his video “It’s Time to Question Bio-engineering.” A compromise must be met so that science may progress with an ethical edge.

Transhumanism bothers not only ethics but also the ideals realized in the enlightenment. In “Introduction: Toward a Critique of Posthuman Futures,” Bart Simon said, “The revolutionary Enlightenment narratives that challenged an oppressive feudal order and re-envisioned ‘man’ as rational, autonomous, unique, and free have been in turn challenged and deconstructed” (4). Humanism demonstrates the abilities of humankind as purely natural human traits not dependent on outside sources. Posthumanism to Simon is seen as anti-humanism, reaching outside of humanity’s natural abilities to incorporate artificial intelligence as a lessening to the human structure. However, the intelligence created was crafted by humankind, and the idea was realized by humankind – artificial intelligence is an extension of the natural and not a means to replace the original. The success or failure in morality will be dependent on the inherent goodness of progress – goodness as a further perfection – as humanity continues to mimic the path of evolution. R.U. Sirius and Jay Cornell man a website called “Criticisms of Transhumanism” to discuss the book Transcendence: The Disinformation Encyclopedia of Transhumanism and The Singularity. In attempts to shatter the objections to transhumanism, the fears are broken down into four groups: feasibility, direct danger, indirect danger, and morality (Sirius and Cornell). Significant numbers of people distrust the abilities of science and do not support transhumanistic efforts. However, if society would allow for integral philosophy, the transition would not be as upsetting.

The fear of scientific progress is unnerving for a large portion of human beings. Michael Specter urges society to embrace the discoveries and abilities of science in his TEDtalk “The Danger of Science Denial.” Science is credited for the advancement of medicine, but society screams for blame to be placed on science for the disturbing rise in autism. Specter notes that “frankenfood” bans discredit GMO enhanced food products, and vaccines are taking the heat for autism. However, he reminds society that vaccines keep disease away from humanity. Prior to medicine and vaccines the mortality rate was a great deal lower than current standards of life expectancy (Specter). Even two hundred years ago, if one lived to be fifty they were considered elderly. In contrast to modern society, a person is considered elderly when they no longer can care for themselves. The discoveries of science must be embraced to ensure further advancement.

The rising consciousness of integral concerns will calm humanity’s reserves for transhumanistic endeavors. Time is required for understanding, and humanity should look to the example set by evolution to allow for gradual acceptance. Human beings use of machines goes back to the wheel – the natural edge of humanity is innovation. Society must embrace the innovative intellect and not cowardly turn away from progress. The future of the human race is difficult to imagine, but with the direction of science, and caution of ethics, the race of humankind will create their own future, forging ahead by means that modern minds cannot fathom.

Biology and spirituality are two separate identifiers of the human species. The physical biology of homo sapiens sapiens is immutable by humankind while spirituality varies dependent on culture, geographic location, and individual understanding; the former being the fiber of life, and the latter being a personal choice, albeit influenced by culture. I argue that concerns of religion, especially in matters of the origins of species, are in no matter qualified to outweigh the theories and discoveries of science. Science and religion are not equal opponents – belief should not be able stand up to fact when put to the test; however, as per human understanding, much credence is placed on one’s spiritual concerns. The betterment of the individual is achieved through “right living,” but the factors of morality are not exclusive to religious interpretation. Morals are a boon of natural selection and are evident in genetic code whereas religion is an interpretation of the history of life.

Morality and ethics are modified characteristics of modern humankind in which evolutionary fingers urge homo sapiens sapiens toward the betterment of species through social concerns. Human emotion is seen as a gift and a curse of nature in which the former allows for happiness, love, and fulfillment; and the latter holds implications of regretted obligation and duty to humankind. Individual ethics are influenced by one’s culture and experience. Society formed to feed the nature of humankind to interact and benefit from a communal setting. Philosophers from the Sophists to Victorians acknowledged culture as a taming mechanism for human nature in direct relation to the selfishness inherent in humankind (Ridley 518). Humankind as a selfish creature is not a new consideration; Thomas Hobbes addressed the need for order in Leviathan, in which he depicted the warring nature of humans. Hobbes saw humans as power hungry, he said, “So that in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death” (343). To limit the power of humans, “artificial man” or government, is implemented in which the matters of right and wrong may be deliberated.

Much like religion, government is not the sole supporter of a balanced life. Nature considers the struggle of life and offers natural means to continue existence. Peter Kropotkin discussed the importance of support, both within and without species separation, in his piece Mutual Aid, and he argued for the importance of cooperation, as chaos was not realistic as the phrase “survival of the fittest” implied, but: “…life in societies is no exception in the animal world; it is the rule, the law of Nature, and it reaches its fullest development with the higher vertebrates” (402). Humans inherited sophisticated societal instincts that are present in other animals, just not as advanced as the human component. Cultures are the expression of these instincts, with reoccurring themes of emotion: “Instincts, in a species like the human one, are not immutable genetic programmes; they are predispositions to learn. … Society was not invented by reasoning men. It evolved as part of our nature. It is as much a product of our genes as our bodies are” (Ridley 519). Culture, the fabric that makes up society, is responsible for individual interpretation and implementation of ethical concerns.

Components of culture include, among others, family, language, and belief. Influence on the individual comes from the contact and authority issued from one’s culture. However, the a priori need to belong to society is found in genetics: “Seeing morality for what it is, a legacy of evolution rather than a reflection of eternal, divinely inspired verities, is part of this understanding” (Ruse and Wilson 511). Human beings arrive in life with an ingrained morality in which it is then manipulated and cultivated by the parents as well as the community. Religion is a strong regulator of the concerns and direction of culture. Organized religion issues the laws of their deity in addition to the laws of nature. But what happens when these laws differ? For Western thought, the predominant religion is Christianity. The struggle for the modern Christian mind is to accept or refuse the law of nature: evolution. Modern attempts are made to placate myth for truth, and believers will go to any means necessary to ensure they reserve a place for their comfort blanket – religion – in the darkness of nature.

Resistance to accepted scientific thought is convoluted matter. In example, biology declares the mortality of man, or that anything that is alive will not live forever but will suffer physical death. Christianity holds that believers will live forever in heaven – the catch is they refer to one’s soul and not one’s eternal physical life. The modern theme of religious thought is a focus on life after death; therefore, an individual is encouraged to live a good life so one’s afterlife is pleasant. The authority championed by religious thought is morality, yet ethics is noted by biology as being an evolutionary modifier – morals exist within humankind regardless of one’s belief in a higher power. Morality indirectly determines the individual’s ability to participate or conform to society so as to allow humankind to interact and benefit from one another: “Evolution has produced the requisites for morality: a tendency to develop social norms and enforce them, the capacities of empathy and sympathy, mutual aid and a sense of fairness, the mechanisms of conflict resolution, and so on” (Waal 513). The wants and needs of humankind, including the lure of society, is a genetic formula. Ethics are a result of genetics in which “ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate…ethics is a shared illusion of the human race. If it were not so, it would not work. The moral ones among us would be outbred by the immoral” (Ruse and Wilson 510). Ethical concern is a natural means to reduce the inherent selfishness of humankind.

Through an ethical lens, religion could be understood to guide the biological yearning for order in which science could support the efforts through evolutionary abilities. Science and religion could see the benefit of each other if the elements were given the proper space to breathe instead of one begetting the other one. Science is the action of physical intelligent thought while religion is the consideration of the spiritual. Both science and religion support ethics, though the former demands for natural as opposed to metaphysical order, regardless of origin: “We need something to spur us against our usual selfish dispositions. Nature, therefore, has made us (via the rules) believe in a disinterested moral code, according to which we ought to help our fellows” (Ruse and Wilson 508). Science and religion are vastly different entities, yet modern thought entertains the notion of allowing them the same considerations in regards to the beginning of life. While upsetting to creationists’ stomachs and humors, it could be that religion is in fact a production of evolution to allow for hope inside of humanity.

However, science produces too many realistic concerns that contradict the beliefs of the spiritual. Two sides emerge for the question of origins – Creationism and Evolution; however, Scott notes, “Most members of the public define the creation/evolution controversy dichotomously with creationists on one side and evolutionists on the other, but in truth there is a continuum of positions rather than a dichotomy” (Scott 267). The latter is limited to fact, theory, and scientific reasoning. The former is open to human interpretation and varied opinions of numerous groups, to include: Deism, Flat Earthism, Geocentrism, Young Earth Creationism, Gap, Day-Age, Progressive, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, and Materialistic Evolution (Scott 267). These groups, ranging in radicalism, assume the bits of science in which support their beliefs while discarding those that do not indicate the presence of a creator. The deists are alone in their understanding as they acknowledge a laissez-faire Creator who created life then sat back to watch what would transpire. Fault may be drawn at this point as the multitude of creation theories cannot agree amidst themselves, let alone when faced with the truth of science.

The age of the planet is proven by science to be over four billion years old. In creationist theory, the earth is said to follow the designs of Genesis, literally depicting the existence as six thousand years. Religion clouds reality in great measures of time in which creationists insist the length of a day was different for God. Utilizing the power of persuasion, Christian interpreters twist the metaphors in the Bible so that a single day could happen outside the abilities of time. The Orthodox Jewish opinion of Rabbi Simon Schwab “hypothesized that time was compressed during the Six Days of creation; the Earth rotated much faster and all other processes were similarly speeded up, so that God’s ‘Cosmic Days’ of creation lasted billions of years according to our human frame of reference” (McIver 550). Religion relies primarily on interpretation, and the length of the day justification is a metaphoric manipulation of religion on science to make truth fit belief.

The Catholic bible states that God created the planet, solar system, and all organic life in six days and rested on the seventh; in the first creation story, man and woman are created on the fifth day, at the same time: “God created man in his image; / in the divine image he created him; / male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). However, in the second story of creation, God is noted for creating man first and allowing him to name all the animals; only later does He create woman because man is lonely without a partner (Genesis 2). Why include two stories of creation: for obedience. The second creation myth depicts woman as coming from man, ultimately making her subservient: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones / and flesh of my flesh; / This one shall be called ‘woman,’ / for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken” (Genesis 2:23). Whereas the first creation myth shows man and woman holding equal creation matters, the second myth places woman after the animals. Adam can be seen as being created for the pleasure of God, and Eve respectively created for Adam’s pleasure. Inside nature Adam witnessed the male and female species joining as one being. Even in dogmatic law, man is seen looking to the natural world for direction.

If religion is only means of manipulation to control the masses, then why is it in human nature to long for a creator? In a debate against a creationist, Richard Dawkins addressed the human ability and desire to believe in God through psychological and evolutionary means; the former being the comfort afforded humanity from the belief in an higher power, and the latter being natural selection shaping the brain of our ancestors to hold a predisposition to believe in higher authority so as to instinctually understand obedience (Sinobiological.com). Religion is means to tame the natural mind, affording society influence through the direction given of religious leaders. In exchange for individual belief and free will, religion relies on the compassion of humanity to reach for the good in life. But compassion is not a direct gift of deity either and is also tied to the evolutionary traits of species, finding origin in the animal kingdom. Robert Wright notes the origins of human compassion are found in kin-selection and reciprocal altruism, in which the allowances for mutual aid benefited animal life (Wright). Compassion, though heavily relied on by religion, is an evolutionary modifier of natural selection just like morality, ethics, and obedience. While these characteristics of humanity are utilized by authorities such as government and religion, the credit for these factors are found through science in which these longings are known as purely biological in nature.

Science enjoys simple truth over flowery interpretation. The beauty and grace of evolution is that while it appears to be so complex that many require the need for a creator, it is a simple process of species selecting the best means to progress. The insistence for an intelligent designer is requisite in creationist theory, but Dawkins illustrates the absurdity of the assumption. Dawkins said, “You can’t use the intelligent designer to explain anything because you have to explain where the intelligent designer came in the first place. The whole beauty of evolution is that it explains how you start with simplicity and work up to complexity, to the illusion of design” (Sinobiological.com). Evolution works because it is a natural process in which life struggles for survival to the best of its natural ability. The elegance of evolution is impressive and needs not rely on a hominid prescience for construction. Humankind is so egocentric that the creationist mind affords for all life to be in direct relation to the human experience.

The implementation of scientific thought follows a different formula than that of superstition and religion. Science has a way of disenchanting life by exposing data of proof. Science explores ‘mysteries’ to find reason and logic instead of accepting magical or supernatural components whereas theology is steeped in mysticism: “In the contemporary evangelical world and beyond, salvation ideas are found in the idea that God designed the molecular natural world and has ultimate power over individual genetic body space” (Jenkins 1694). Jenkins addresses the rewriting of biology to fit cultural restraints to fit a particular religion: “…a repertoire employs gene as cultural icon (symbolic engagement), embeds this symbol in cultural debates of scientific naturalism and genetic essentialism (disputatious engagement), and well executes scientific performance (performative engagement), the resulting organizational legitimation has the potential to resonate deeply throughout a subculture, to enchant and reinforce the mystical in contemporary experiences of the world” (1695). Media is seen as a tool to implicate culture, a powerful medium to sway the thoughts of the audience.

Culture holds on to mysticism by implying the need for superstition. In Review of Johnson (1992), Eugenie C. Scott clarifies the differences of naturalism and evolution, placing science with a non-theistic (as opposed to anti-theistic) view in which he addresses the issues with supernatural origin: “The problem with supernatural explanations is that, correct or incorrect, they cannot be rejected, and science proceeds by rejecting explanations rather than ‘proving’ them true” (590). The allure of the supernatural of creationist thought is found inside of fear – the Christian mind is afraid for evolution to be correct: “…if evolution by natural selection (Darwinism) really happened, then it is not possible for life to have purpose and for the universe and Earth to have been designed by an omnipotent, personal God. He feels that life would have no meaning, and moral and ethical systems would have no foundation” (Scott Review of Johnson 586). Evolution is prepared to address these concerns. Morals and ethics are traits apparent in human DNA to instill order and obedience, and the meaning of life is seen as progression towards perfection of species via natural selection. Evolutionary matters address the oneness of life, including the complexities of humankind but not limited to the human experience. Evolution allows for growth of all organic life and silently demonstrates the story of our origins.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan.” Main Currents of Western Thought: Readings in Western

European Intellectual History from the Middle Ages to the Present. 4th ed. Ed. Franklin

Who Are You?

I am currently attaining my Master of Arts in Humanities at American Public University Systems. I expect to complete this degree by August of 2016. I am a member of the American Humanist Association, the American Philosophical Association, PEN@America, the History of Science Society, and the Socratic Philosophical Honor Society. I would love to find an internship because I want to put my brain to good use. Philosophy has a mind to be "out there" gleaning experience. Human nature is twisting and growing - and the abilities we know are able to learn more. I am excited to be a philosopher, historian, writer, and occasional poetess.